Actually, I rather like the fact that the producers are trying to get things to fit. I'm fed up of this "oh, let's just reboot" constant mentality. Spiderman, Fantastic Four etc...

Respect to Singer and all involved if they can make this one, huge wonderful saga.

PS - I must be the only person in the world who DOESN'T hate "The Last Stand"? I don't think it was as good as 1 or 2 - it was far too short, for one thing, and crammed too much in - but I don't outright hate it. It's fine.

Things will just go to **** if Singer tries to do what he did with "Superman" and say "these old movies count, these ones don't" etc.

"First Class" as we got it would not have happened without Bryan Singer's treatment being green lit. Untill that point it was still based on Jeff Parker's "X-Men: First Class" comic. He and Vaughn worked very closely together. They were pretty much in-synch with each other for the entire production of the film. Singer also helped cast the movie IIRC. Vaughn directed the film and put his own stamp on it, but the film was as much Singer's as it was Vaughns. As I've said before, it seems like some fans have forgotten just how much involvement and how important Bryan Singer was to "X-Men: First Class".

Well crap! Guess it's back to the emo "woe is us, for we are so persecuted" angst-festing...

Click to expand...

Do people not know how involved he was with the previous movie, or do they just like to pretend he wasn't there?

Click to expand...

If he was involved, at least his influence was kept at bay, because we got an X-men film that was true to the concept AND a good superhero movie at the same time, as opposed to 1, 2, and much of 3 where it was all about Singer's stupid "mutant=gays" moralizing.

Well crap! Guess it's back to the emo "woe is us, for we are so persecuted" angst-festing...

Click to expand...

Do people not know how involved he was with the previous movie, or do they just like to pretend he wasn't there?

Click to expand...

If he was involved, at least his influence was kept at bay, because we got an X-men film that was true to the concept AND a good superhero movie at the same time, as opposed to 1, 2, and much of 3 where it was all about Singer's stupid "mutant=gays" moralizing.

Click to expand...

You do realize that many writers of the X-Men have actually stated that the way Mutants must hide who and what they are can be modern parallels to gays. Including the writer who wrote more episodes of the X-Men then any other. Now that isn't to say that it can't be used for other parallels (they used other parallels in the mid sixties), but again many a writer has out and out stated that it is used as a parallel to any culture or group that has to hide from the public and behave in a way that is counter to their nature. And that absolutely includes gays and lesbians.

And I think Claremont might, just have a little better understanding on that then the public.

The X-Men have always been an allegory for persecuted groups. It started with the Civil Rights movement, but it quickly identified itself with gay rights (which makes sense since most mutants are also part of a group that is not visually identifiable). I thought X-Men First Class was the most effective at emphasizing the themes. Considering the plot of this movie, I see no reason to expect differently here.

There is a difference between a concept being an allegory, and the execution of the concept being all about the allegory. Singer in 1, 2 and most of 3 spent far too much time on the philosophising, and nowhere near enough time on the "POW! BAM! ZAP!"

The X-Men and Magneto in the first two and a half films are pathetically weak, and have few chances on screen to demonstrate their true power. The only time Magneto in particular was written properly powers wise was the lifting of the Golden Gate Bridge. He NEVER got Jean/Phoenix right except the little "teaser" bit at the end of 2.

In short, however good some things might have been about the first 3 films, they failed to "embrace the spandex" and thus fail as superhero movies, which makes the approach in FC the far superior version, and Singer had the least to do with that film.

There is a difference between a concept being an allegory, and the execution of the concept being all about the allegory. Singer in 1, 2 and most of 3 spent far too much time on the philosophising, and nowhere near enough time on the "POW! BAM! ZAP!"

Click to expand...

Ah, yes, this old plaint again, which completely ignores the budget and special effects realities behind X1, the fact that the very much "spandex-embracing" Batman and Robin was still a fresh memory in people minds, and the fact that the most "out-there" X-movies, X3 and Origins, are also by far the worst.

No, no, do go on, good sir! These complaints are in no way tired, worn, and not terribly applicable to DOFP, considering X1 was first developed over thirteen years ago!